Apodaca v. White
| Decision Date | 13 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:17-cv-01014-L-AHG |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | Nathan APODACA; and Students for Life at California State University - San Marcos, Plaintiffs, v. Timothy P. WHITE, Chancellor of California State University, in his official and individual capacities; Karen S. Haynes, President of California State University-San Marcos, in her official and individual capacities; and Associated Students, Inc. of California State University San Marcos, a California nonprofit corporation, Defendants. |
Daniel Ray Watkins, Watkins & Letofsky, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Jonathan Caleb Dalton, Pro Hac Vice, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, Ryan Jeffrey Tucker, Pro Hac Vice, Tyson C. Langhofer, Pro Hac Vice, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiffs.
Sandra Lynn McDonough, Evan Pena, Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP, Jeffrey Patrick Michalowski, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pending before the Court in this action alleging violations of constitutional rights is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Timothy P. White, Karen Haynes, and Associated Students, Inc. of California State University San Marcos ("ASI") (collectively "Defendants"). Additionally, Defendant filed a conditional motion to sever jurisdictional issues and strike Plaintiffs Nathan Apodaca and Students for Life at California State University-San Marcos ("Students for Life") ("CSUSM") (collectively "Plaintiffs") jury demand as it relates to those issues if they survive summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment in combination with its opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. All motions have been fully briefed. For the reasons which follow, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment [doc. 55] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, Defendants' motion to sever and strike jury demand [doc. 56] is DENIED AS MOOT, and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [doc. 58] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
CSUSM is a public university organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, which receives funding from the State of California.
Plaintiff Nathan Apodaca1 was a student at CSUSM and president of Students for Life at CSUSM ("Students for Life") from Fall 2016 until Fall 2017. Students for Life was a recognized student organization ("RSO") at CSUSM during the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 academic years. Students for Life has three goals: Doc. 58-4 at 386-87. To achieve its goals, Students for Life assembles public outreach events, like on campus debates about abortion and host speakers.
Defendant Timothy P. White is the Chancellor of CSUSM and has been since December 2012. Defendant Karen S. Haynes is the President of CSUSM and has been since 2004. Defendant ASI is a nonprofit public benefit corporation. CSUSM recognizes ASI as an official auxiliary organization with its primary activity being student body organization programs. Advocacy, one of ASI's core values, demands that ASI represent the student voice in the governance of the campus, community, and state of California. ASI is exclusively funded by the ASI Student Fee (the "ASI fee"). The ASI fee and any interest earned on ASI accounts are ASI's only sources of income, and the fee is held in trust for ASI's use only. The ASI fee is a mandatory fee that every undergraduate attending classes on campus pays as a condition of enrollment.2 By enrolling at CSUSM and paying the ASI fee, students become members of ASI. Plaintiff Apodaca, like each Students for Life student member, paid the ASI fee each semester he attended CSUSM.
Student body organization funds generated through mandatory fees, like the ASI fee, may be expended, inter alia , for programs of cultural and educational enrichment and community service. ASI created two ASI-fee-funded community centers, the Gender Equity Center ("GEC") and the LGBTQA Pride Center ("Pride center") (collectively "the Centers"). The purpose of the GEC is to provide a space dedicated to gender equity in which students of all genders and diverse identities feel safe, valued, and respected. The purpose of the Pride Center is to create, sustain, and affirm an open, safe, and inclusive environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer questioning, intersex, and ally individuals and communities at CSUSM. The Centers create their own programs and contribute funding to events put on by other organizations.
Student body organization funds generated through mandatory fees, like the ASI fee, also may be expended, inter alia , for assistance to RSOs. RSOs at CSUSM may seek to access ASI fee funds for event funding from four entities: (1) the ASI Leadership Fund ("ALF"), (2) the Centers, (3) the Campus Activities Board ("CAB"), or (4) the ASI Board of Directors ("BOD") directly. RSOs would receive ALF funding in the form of a reimbursement for approved allocations, while the other three entities providing funding by cosponsoring events. The ALF funding application includes guidelines and criteria to which RSOs must satisfy to be eligible to receive ALF funding. Its funding eligibility guidelines prohibit ALF funding for honorariums and speaker fees and requires budgets to be itemized. The Centers have neither listed criterion from which to decide whether to fund an RSO event nor a written policy that governs whether either Center can or will cosponsor an RSO's proposed activity. Neither CAB nor BOD have an explicit written policy specifying its process for granting cosponsorship.
On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs emailed ASI seeking, inter alia , clarification on how to request funding to cover an honorarium and travel expenses for a speaker Students for Life invited to visit CSUSM and lecture about abortion (the "abortion lecture") the following semester. On November 23, 2016, ASI responded and pointed Plaintiffs to the Arts & Lectures department, who recently had led the efforts to bring Dr. Cornel West to CSUSM to speak, but informed Plaintiffs that the call for funding proposals for that school year had closed. Plaintiffs immediately responded to ASI requesting whether ASI would cosponsor their event. On December 8, 2016, ASI replied, "Due to our budget we are not able to offer any assistance." Doc. 58-10 at 10.
On or about February 2, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted an ALF funding application requesting $500 for "Event expenses/Logistics/Advertising" related to the abortion lecture despite Apodaca's knowledge that honorariums and speaker fees were not eligible expenses. On February 6, 2017, ASI denied Plaintiffs' application because there was no itemized budget. When Apodaca inquired whether Plaintiffs could resubmit to cover speaker travel expenses, ASI reminded him that ALF funds cannot pay for speaker fees or travel expenses. Plaintiffs did not submit a revised application. When Plaintiffs inquired whether the Centers can provide speaker funding, ASI informed Plaintiffs that the Centers may be able to fund a speaker if the Centers cosponsor the event. Although Apodaca was skeptical of the Centers' desire to cosponsor the abortion lecture event, ASI encouraged Apodaca to inquire about the opportunity as the Centers are a part of ASI.
On February 24, 2017, Plaintiffs emailed the assistant director of the Centers to request the Centers cosponsor the abortion lecture as funding was needed to cover the anticipated speaker's travel expenses. The Centers' assistant director forwarded Plaintiffs' request to the director of the Centers to discuss how they should respond to Plaintiffs' cosponsorship request. Subsequently, the Centers assistant director replied to Plaintiffs' email and denied Plaintiffs' cosponsorship request. The Centers claimed no additional funds could be committed after review of its remaining events and informed Plaintiffs that its request did not provide enough notice as GEC had moved to planning its events about 14 months out. The same day, Plaintiffs replied to the email denying their request to ask what the Centers required to apply for cosponsorship. Plaintiffs' reply was sent to the Centers' director and assistant director and neither responded to Plaintiffs' email.
On May 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint. On August 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the above-mentioned Defendants alleging violations of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech based on compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination and violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's right to equal protection of the law. Subsequently, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment along with a motion to sever certain issues and strike the jury demand. Plaintiffs opposed Defendants motion for summary judgment and filed their own cross motion for summary judgment. Defendants' reply to its summary judgment motion also served as the opposition to Plaintiffs' cross motion. Later, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' motion to sever and filed their reply to the cross motion for summary judgment. Lastly, Defendants filed its reply to the motion to sever. After review, the Court found the matters suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.
Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56(c) where the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Viewpoint Neutrality Now v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn.
...307 F.3d 566, 594 (7th Cir. 2002) ; and a requirement to consider an RSO's history and need to return to campus, Apodaca v. White , 401 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1056 (S.D. Cal. 2019).2. Reasonableness In addition to being viewpoint neutral, a restriction on access to a limited public forum must be......
-
Viewpoint Neutrality Now! v. Regents of Univ. of Minn.
...307 F.3d 566, 594 (7th Cir. 2002), and a requirement to consider an RSO's history and need to return to campus, Apodaca v. White, 401 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1056 (S.D. Cal. 2019).2. Reasonableness In addition to being viewpoint neutral, a restriction on access to a limited public forum must be "......